[ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy holders (/wRSA + efficient use))
sleibrand at internap.com
Thu Aug 2 14:38:03 EDT 2007
Paul Vixie wrote:
>> Whatever alternate reality we end up with, I think we can trust network
>> operators to do what's in their best interest, and to find a way to
>> effectively deal with IPv4 deaggregation, as long as we don't completely
>> abandon aggregation and hierarchical allocation.
> the use of the word "we" above intrigues me. what natural predator will
> keep the deaggregation animal from overrunning our habitat? filtering
> will be like a broad spectrum poison, killing a little bit of everything.
> who is this "we" that you think is going to do the right thing when all
> of the wrong things are being done distantly from "us"?
I'm optimistic that the Internet will survive this round of accelerated
routing table growth (after IPv4 free pool exhaustion), as it did the
last one (during the bubble). It won't happen without effort, or
without pain, but it won't kill us, either.
I'm also optimistic that we've learned some lessons from the last round
of deaggregation, and will have narrow-spectrum therapies (like
as-pathlimit) to treat the next round. For example, there's no
particular reason that a North American network needs to hear all the
/24 deaggregates from Asia and Europe if they're covered by larger
aggregates, and vice versa. It's not really a case that "they" are
doing bad things, and "we" are doing everything right. Rather,
deaggregation is something that is very useful locally, and not so
useful further away, so if filtering becomes necessary, it would be
appropriate for everyone to filter distantly-originated deaggregates,
and continue listening to locally-originated ones.
More information about the ARIN-PPML